Search Results

Search found 4593 results on 184 pages for 'constructor injection'.

Page 9/184 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

• Jboss AS 7 - Dependency Injection

  - by Nic Willemse

  Im attempting to make use of dependency injection in Jboss AS 7 and im having huge difficulties. I have setup a EAR which contains both a EJB jar and a war. The war contains a richfaces web app. Im attempting to inject an EJB from the ejb jar into a faces managed bean with the code below : public class UserController { @EJB(mappedName="UserService") private UserFacadeService userService; public String getService(){ if(userService == null){ however when i deploy jboss puts the error in the console : rolled back with failure message {"Services with missing/unavailable dependencies" => ["jboss.deployment.subunit.\"GoodByeJohnEAR.ear\".\"GoodByeJohnWeb-1.0-SNAPSHOT.war\".component.\"managed-bean.za.co.gbj.UserController\".START missing [ jboss.naming.context.java.module.GoodByeJohnEAR.\"GoodByeJohnWeb-1.0-SNAPSHOT\".\"env/za.co.gbj.UserController/userService\" ]","jboss.deployment.subunit.\"GoodByeJohnEAR.ear\".\"GoodByeJohnWeb-1.0-SNAPSHOT.war\".jndiDependencyService missing [ jboss.naming.context.java.module.GoodByeJohnEAR.\"GoodByeJohnWeb-1.0-SNAPSHOT\".\"env/za.co.gbj.UserController/userService\" ]","jboss.naming.context.java.module.GoodByeJohnEAR.\"GoodByeJohnWeb-1.0-SNAPSHOT\".\"env/za.co.gbj.UserController/userService\".jboss.deployment.subunit.\"GoodByeJohnEAR.ear\".\"GoodByeJohnWeb-1.0-SNAPSHOT.war\".module.GoodByeJohnEAR.\"GoodByeJohnWeb-1.0-SNAPSHOT\".2 missing [ jboss.naming.context.java.module.GoodByeJohnEAR.\"GoodByeJohnWeb-1.0-SNAPSHOT\".env/UserService ]"]} 09:03:50,576 INFO [org.jboss.as.server.deployment] (MSC service thread 1-8) Starting deployment of "GoodByeJohnEAR.ear" 09:03:50,670 INFO [org.jboss.as.server.deployment] (MSC service thread 1-3) Starting deployment of "GoodByeJohnWeb-1.0-SNAPSHOT.war" 09:03:50,670 INFO [org.jboss.as.server.deployment] (MSC service thread 1-8) Starting deployment of "GoodByeJohnEJB-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar" 09:03:51,367 WARN [org.jboss.as.server.deployment.service-loader] (MSC service thread 1-2) Encountered invalid class name "com.sun.faces.vendor.Tomcat6InjectionProvider:org.apache.catalina.util.DefaultAnnotationProcessor" for service type "com.sun.faces.spi.injectionprovider" 09:03:51,367 WARN [org.jboss.as.server.deployment.service-loader] (MSC service thread 1-2) Encountered invalid class name "com.sun.faces.vendor.Jetty6InjectionProvider:org.mortbay.jetty.plus.annotation.InjectionCollection" for service type "com.sun.faces.spi.injectionprovider" 09:03:51,375 INFO [org.jboss.as.ejb3.deployment.processors.EjbJndiBindingsDeploymentUnitProcessor] (MSC service thread 1-8) JNDI bindings for session bean named UserFacadeBean in deployment unit subdeployment "GoodByeJohnEJB-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar" of deployment "GoodByeJohnEAR.ear" are as follows: java:global/GoodByeJohnEAR/GoodByeJohnEJB-1.0-SNAPSHOT/UserFacadeBean!za.co.gbj.UserFacadeService java:app/GoodByeJohnEJB-1.0-SNAPSHOT/UserFacadeBean!za.co.gbj.UserFacadeService java:module/UserFacadeBean!za.co.gbj.UserFacadeService java:global/GoodByeJohnEAR/GoodByeJohnEJB-1.0-SNAPSHOT/UserFacadeBean java:app/GoodByeJohnEJB-1.0-SNAPSHOT/UserFacadeBean java:module/UserFacadeBean 09:03:51,406 INFO [org.jboss.as.ejb3.deployment.processors.EjbJndiBindingsDeploymentUnitProcessor] (MSC service thread 1-4) JNDI bindings for session bean named UserFacadeBean in deployment unit subdeployment "GoodByeJohnWeb-1.0-SNAPSHOT.war" of deployment "GoodByeJohnEAR.ear" are as follows: java:global/GoodByeJohnEAR/GoodByeJohnWeb-1.0-SNAPSHOT/UserFacadeBean!za.co.gbj.UserFacadeService java:app/GoodByeJohnWeb-1.0-SNAPSHOT/UserFacadeBean!za.co.gbj.UserFacadeService java:module/UserFacadeBean!za.co.gbj.UserFacadeService java:global/GoodByeJohnEAR/GoodByeJohnWeb-1.0-SNAPSHOT/UserFacadeBean java:app/GoodByeJohnWeb-1.0-SNAPSHOT/UserFacadeBean java:module/UserFacadeBean 09:03:51,577 INFO [org.jboss.as.controller] (DeploymentScanner-threads - 1) Service status report New missing/unsatisfied dependencies: service jboss.naming.context.java.module.GoodByeJohnEAR."GoodByeJohnWeb-1.0-SNAPSHOT".env/UserService (missing) service jboss.naming.context.java.module.GoodByeJohnEAR."GoodByeJohnWeb-1.0-SNAPSHOT"."env/za.co.gbj.UserController/userService" (missing) Please assist!

  Read the article

• Accessing the constructor by using Reflection

  - by Md. Rashim Uddin

  Assume the class is public and and the constructor is internal like as Public class A { private string text; internal A(string submittedText); public string StrText { get; } } In this case how could I Access the constructor by using Reflection. What I have done so far Type[] pTypes = new Type[1]; pTypes[0] = typeof(object); object[] argList = new object[1]; argList[0] = "Some Text"; ConstructorInfo c = typeof(A).GetConstructor (BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance, null, pTypes, null); A foo = (A)c.Invoke(BindingFlags.NonPublic, null, argList, Application.CurrentCulture); But it shows an error. Any Suggestions

  Read the article

• copy constructor by address

  - by anish

  I have two copy constructors Foo(Foo &obj){ } Foo(Foo *obj){ } When the second copy constructor will get called?

  Read the article

• Accomplishing boost::shared_from_this() in constructor via boost::shared_from_raw(this)

  - by Kyle

  Googling and poking around the boost code, it appears that it's now possible to construct a shared_ptr to this in a constructor, by inheriting from enable_shared_from_raw and calling shared_from_raw(this) Is there any documentation or examples of this? I'm finding nothing with google. Why am I not finding any useful buzz on this on google? I would have thought using shared_from_this in a constructor would be a hot/desirable item. Should I be inheriting from both enable_shared_from_raw and enable_shared_from_this, and restricting my usage of enable_shared_from_raw when I have to? If so, why? Is there a performance hit with shared_from_raw?

  Read the article

• ASP.NET MVC - ASPX with non-default constructor

  - by bh213

  Is it possible for a ASPX view (in ASP.NET MVC) to have non-default constructor AND use this constructor when creating this view? Example - Page will inherit from this class: public class ViewPageWithHelper<TModel> : System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<TModel> where TModel : class { public ViewPageWithHelper(Helpers helpers) { Helpers = helpers; } protected Helpers Helpers { get; private set; } } ASPX view: <%@ Page Language="C#" MasterPageFile="~/Views/Shared/Site.Master" Inherits="MyInjectedViewPage<MyModel>" %> <% Helpers.XXXX %> Now, I'd like to inject Helpers into view somehow - automatically. Ideas?

  Read the article

• Copy constructor with more than one parameter

  - by Ravi Gupta

  I am learning C++ and was reading copy constructor from the C++: The Complete Reference. The books says that It is permissible for a copy constructor to have additional parameters as long as they have default arguments defined for them. However, in all cases the first parameter must be a reference to the object doing the initializing. But I am confused that how we are going to pass those additional parameters? I am sure there should be some way which is not given in the book and which I am unable to figure out. Can anyone help me out? EDIT: Also is it possible to pass these extra parameters in all three cases i.e. ¦ When one object explicitly initializes another, such as in a declaration ¦ When a copy of an object is made to be passed to a function ¦ When a temporary object is generated (most commonly, as a return value)

  Read the article

• Const parameter at constructor causes stackoverflow

  - by Luca

  I've found this strange behavior with VS2005 C++ compiler. Here is the situation: I cannot publish the code, but situation is very simple. Here is initial code: it work perfectly class Foo { public: Foo(Bar &bar) { ... } } The constructor implementation stores a reference, setup some members... indeed nothing special. If I change the code in the following way: class Foo { public: Foo(const Bar &bar) { ... } } I've added a const qualifier to the only constructor routine parameter. It compiles correctly, but the compiler outputs a warning saying that the routine Foo::Foo will cause a stackoverflow (even if the execution path doesn't construct any object Foo); effectively this happens. So, why the code without the const parameter works perfectly, while the one with the const qualifier causes a stackoverflow? What can cause this strange behavior?

  Read the article

• Constructor Type Coercion in C++

  - by Robert Mason

  Take the following class: class mytype { double num; public: mytype(int a) { num = sqrt(a); } void print() { cout << num; } } Say there is a method which takes a mytype: void foo(mytype a) { a.print(); } Is it legal c++ (or is there a way to implement this) to call foo(4), which would (in theory) output 2? From what I can glean you can overload type casts from a user defined class, but not to. Can constructor do this in a standards-compliant manner (assuming, of course, the constructor is not explicit). Hopefully there is a way to in the end have this legal: int a; cin >> a; foo(a); Note: this is quite obviously not the actual issue, but just an example for posting purposes. I can't just overload the function because of inheritance and other program-specific issues.

  Read the article

• C# - Adding to an existing (generated) constructor

  - by Vaccano

  I have a constructor that is in generated code. I don't want to change the generated code (cause it would get overwritten when I regenerate), but I need to add some functionality to the constructor. Here is some example code: // Generated file public partial class MyGeneratedClass { public MyGeneratedClass() { Does some generated stuff } } The only solution I can come up with is this: // My hand made file public partial class MyGeneratedClass { public MyGeneratedClass(bool useOtherConstructor):this() { do my added functinallity } } I am fairly sure this will work, but I then have a lame unused param to my constructors and I have to go change them all. Is there a better way? If not that is fine, but I thought I would ask.

  Read the article

• Passing dependent objects to a parent constructor in Scala

  - by Nick Johnson

  Suppose I have the following class heirarchy: class A() class B(a:A) class C(b:B) class BaseClass(b:B, c:C) Now I want to implement a subclass of BaseClass, which is given an instance of A, and constructs instances of B and C, which it passes to its superclass constructor. If I could use arbitrary expressions, I'd do something like this: b = new B(a) c = new C(b) super(b, c) Because the second argument to the parent constructor depends on the value of the first argument, though, I can't see any way to do this, without using a factory function, or a gratuitous hack, such as : class IntermediateSubclass(b:B) extends BaseClass(b, new C(b)) class RealSubclass(a:A) extends IntermediateSubclass(new B(a)) Is there clean way to do this?

  Read the article

• Problem accessing base member in derived constructor

  - by LeopardSkinPillBoxHat

  Given the following classes: class Foo { struct BarBC { protected: BarBC(uint32_t aKey) : mKey(aKey) mOtherKey(0) public: const uint32_t mKey; const uint32_t mOtherKey; }; struct Bar : public BarBC { Bar(uint32_t aKey, uint32_t aOtherKey) : BarBC(aKey), mOtherKey(aOtherKey) // Compile error here }; }; I am getting a compilation error at the point indicated: error: class `Foo::Bar' does not have any field named `mOtherKey'. Can anyone explain this? I suspect it's a syntactical problem due to my Bar class being defined within the Foo class, but can't seem to find a way around it. This is simple public inheritance, so mOtherKey should be accessible from the Bar constructor. Right? Or is it something to do with the fact that mOtherKey is const and I have already initialised it to 0 in the BarBC constructor?

  Read the article

• Constructor/Destructor involving a class and a struct

  - by Bogdan Maier

  I am working on a program and need to make an array of objects, specifically I have a 31x1 array where each position is an object, (each object is basically built out of 6 ints). Here is what I have but something is wrong and i could use some help thank you. 31x1 struct header" const int days=31; struct Arr{ int days; int *M; }; typedef Arr* Array; 31x1 matrix constructor: void constr(){ int *M; M = new Expe[31]; // Expe is the class class header: class Expe { private: //0-HouseKeeping, 1-Food, 2-Transport, 3-Clothing, 4-TelNet, 5-others int *obj; } Class object constructor: Expe::Expe() { this->obj=new int[6]; } help please... because i`m pretty lost.

  Read the article

• C# COM+ component isn't getting the constructor string

  - by Kyle W

  I've created a COM+ component in C# with a strong name, COM Visible, ProgId, etc... I've then registered the assembly with regasm, and imported it into the COM+ Applications in Component Services. It runs just fine, and loads up the DLL, except that the constructor string that is passed in is always empty. The method signature is protected override void Construct(string constructString), and it is being called before the method on the actual component. In the component details in COM+ Applications, the constructor string is checked and a value is entered. Any help is appreciated.

  Read the article

• Why isn't the copy constructor elided here?

  - by Jesse Beder

  (I'm using gcc with -O2.) This seems like a straightforward opportunity to elide the copy constructor, since there are no side-effects to accessing the value of a field in a bar's copy of a foo; but the copy constructor is called, since I get the output meep meep!. #include <iostream> struct foo { foo(): a(5) { } foo(const foo& f): a(f.a) { std::cout << "meep meep!\n"; } int a; }; struct bar { foo F() const { return f; } foo f; }; int main() { bar b; int a = b.F().a; return 0; }

  Read the article

• C++ constructor problem, values not being set

  - by 2Real

  Hi, I'm new to C++ and I'm trying to figure out this problem I'm having with my constructor for one of my classes. What happens is... all my variables are initialized properly except two (health and type). #pragma once #include <irrlicht.h> #include <vector> #include <cassert> using namespace irr; using namespace core; using namespace scene; enum { PLAYER = 0, NPC = 1, SOLDIER = 2, CHAINGUNNER = 3 }; class Model { public: Model(void); Model(int id, std::vector<ISceneNode*> modelVec, int modType); ~Model(void); std::vector<int> path; std::vector<ISceneNode*> model; int endNode; int type; int animate; int health; u32 lastAnimation; private: int mId; }; #include "Model.h" Model::Model(void) { //assert(false); } Model::Model(int id, std::vector<ISceneNode*> modelVec, int modType) { path = std::vector<int>(); model = modelVec; endNode = 0; type = modType; animate = 0; health = 100; lastAnimation = 0; mId = id; } Model::~Model(void) {} I create a model with Model soldier(id, model, SOLDIER) Everything is set properly except type and health. I've tried many different things, but I cannot figure out my problem. I'm not sure but the default constructor is being called. It doesn't make sense because I make no called to that constructor. Thanks,

  Read the article

• Dependency injection in constructor, method or just use a static class instead?

  - by gaetanm

  What is the best between: $dispatcher = new Dispatcher($request); $dispatcher->dispatch(); and $dispatcher = new Dispatcher(); $dispatcher->dispatch($request); or even Dispatcher::dispatch($request); Knowing that only one method of this class uses the $request instance. I naturally tend to the last solution because the class have no other states, but by I feel that it may not be the best OOP solution.

  Read the article

• How to do dependency Injection and conditional object creation based on type?

  - by Pradeep

  I have a service endpoint initialized using DI. It is of the following style. This end point is used across the app. public class CustomerService : ICustomerService { private IValidationService ValidationService { get; set; } private ICustomerRepository Repository { get; set; } public CustomerService(IValidationService validationService,ICustomerRepository repository) { ValidationService = validationService; Repository = repository; } public void Save(CustomerDTO customer) { if (ValidationService.Valid(customer)) Repository.Save(customer); } Now, With the changing requirements, there are going to be different types of customers (Legacy/Regular). The requirement is based on the type of the customer I have to validate and persist the customer in a different way (e.g. if Legacy customer persist to LegacyRepository). The wrong way to do this will be to break DI and do somthing like public void Save(CustomerDTO customer) { if(customer.Type == CustomerTypes.Legacy) { if (LegacyValidationService.Valid(customer)) LegacyRepository.Save(customer); } else { if (ValidationService.Valid(customer)) Repository.Save(customer); } } My options to me seems like DI all possible IValidationService and ICustomerRepository and switch based on type, which seems wrong. The other is to change the service signature to Save(IValidationService validation, ICustomerRepository repository, CustomerDTO customer) which is an invasive change. Break DI. Use the Strategy pattern approach for each type and do something like: validation= CustomerValidationServiceFactory.GetStratedgy(customer.Type); validation.Valid(customer) but now I have a static method which needs to know how to initialize different services. I am sure this is a very common problem, What is the right way to solve this without changing service signatures or breaking DI?

  Read the article

• Is dependency injection by hand a better alternative to composition and polymorphism?

  - by Drake Clarris

  First, I'm an entry level programmer; In fact, I'm finishing an A.S. degree with a final capstone project over the summer. In my new job, when there isn't some project for me to do (they're waiting to fill the team with more new hires), I've been given books to read and learn from while I wait - some textbooks, others not so much (like Code Complete). After going through these books, I've turned to the internet to learn as much as possible, and started learning about SOLID and DI (we talked some about Liskov's substitution principle, but not much else SOLID ideas). So as I've learned, I sat down to do to learn better, and began writing some code to utilize DI by hand (there are no DI frameworks on the development computers). Thing is, as I do it, I notice it feels familiar... and it seems like it is very much like work I've done in the past using composition of abstract classes using polymorphism. Am I missing a bigger picture here? Is there something about DI (at least by hand) that goes beyond that? I understand the possibility of having configurations not in code of some DI frameworks having some great benefits as far as changing things without having to recompile, but when doing it by hand, I'm not sure if it's any different than stated above... Some insight into this would be very helpful!

  Read the article

• it is a good approach to implement dependency injection in a desktop app?

  - by luis_laurent

  Well, the thing is that I am just about to create a Desktop App (with .NET windows forms) And now I just wonder if it would be really a wise choise to use any IoC (StructureMap,Ninject,Spring .Net), I have used them before for Asp.Net web applications but what makes me doubt now is the fact that working with windows forms my business entities will persist when I navigate through tabs and unlike than web forms or mvc apps where it would be necesary to inject my business entity for every new request that is performed, I mean this because of the Asp.Net page life cycle where is performed the initialization and controls instantiation. Maybe I am misunderstanding the point of using an IoC, so please tell me what do you think would be a better choise?

  Read the article

• Dependency Injection and Unit of Work pattern

  - by sunwukung

  I have a dilemma. I've used DI (read: factory) to provide core components for a homebrew ORM. The container provides database connections, DAO's,Mappers and their resultant Domain Objects on request. Here's a basic outline of the Mappers and Domain Object classes class Mapper{ public function __constructor($DAO){ $this->DAO = $DAO; } public function load($id){ if(isset(Monitor::members[$id]){ return Monitor::members[$id]; $values = $this->DAO->selectStmt($id); //field mapping process omitted for brevity $Object = new Object($values); return $Object; } } class User(){ public function setName($string){ $this->name = $string; //mark modified by means fair or foul } } The ORM also contains a class (Monitor) based on the Unit of Work pattern i.e. class Monitor(){ private static array modified; private static array dirty; public function markClean($class); public function markModified($class); } The ORM class itself simply co-ordinates resources extracted from the DI container. So, to instantiate a new User object: $Container = new DI_Container; $ORM = new ORM($Container); $User = $ORM->load('user',1); //at this point the container instantiates a mapper class //and passes a database connection to it via the constructor //the mapper then takes the second argument and loads the user with that id $User->setName('Rumpelstiltskin');//at this point, User must mark itself as "modified" My question is this. At the point when a user sets values on a Domain Object class, I need to mark the class as "dirty" in the Monitor class. I have one of three options as I can see it 1: Pass an instance of the Monitor class to the Domain Object. I noticed this gets marked as recursive in FirePHP - i.e. $this-Monitor-markModified($this) 2: Instantiate the Monitor directly in the Domain Object - does this break DI? 3: Make the Monitor methods static, and call them from inside the Domain Object - this breaks DI too doesn't it? What would be your recommended course of action (other than use an existing ORM, I'm doing this for fun...)

  Read the article

• How to befriend a templated class's constructor?

  - by Kyle

  Why does class A; template<typename T> class B { private: A* a; public: B(); }; class A : public B<int> { private: friend B<int>::B<int>(); int x; }; template<typename T> B<T>::B() { a = new A; a->x = 5; } int main() { return 0; } result in ../src/main.cpp:15: error: invalid use of constructor as a template ../src/main.cpp:15: note: use ‘B::B’ instead of ‘B::class B’ to name the constructor in a qualified name yet changing friend B<int>::B<int>() to friend B<int>::B() results in ../src/main.cpp:15: error: no ‘void B::B()’ member function declared in class ‘B’ while removing the template completely class A; class B { private: A* a; public: B(); }; class A : public B { private: friend B::B(); int x; }; B::B() { a = new A; a->x = 5; } int main() { return 0; } compiles and executes just fine -- despite my IDE saying friend B::B() is invalid syntax?

  Read the article

• Copy constructor using private attributes

  - by Pedro Magueija

  Hello all, My first question here so be gentle. I would like arguments for the following code: public class Example { private String name; private int age; ... // copy constructor here public Example(Example e) { this.name = e.name; // accessing a private attribute of an instance this.age = e.age; } ... } I believe this breaks the modularity of the instance passed to the copy construct. This is what I believe to be correct: public class Example { private String name; private int age; ... // copy constructor here public Example(Example e) { this.setName(e.getName()); this.setAge(e.getAge()); } ... } A friend has exposed a valid point of view, saying that in the copy construct we should create the object as fast as possible. And adding getter/setter methods would result in unnecessary overhead. I stand on a crossroad. Can you shed some light?

  Read the article

• IOC Container Handling State Params in Non-Default Constructor

  - by Mystagogue

  For the purpose of this discussion, there are two kinds of parameters an object constructor might take: state dependency or service dependency. Supplying a service dependency with an IOC container is easy: DI takes over. But in contrast, state dependencies are usually only known to the client. That is, the object requestor. It turns out that having a client supply the state params through an IOC Container is quite painful. I will show several different ways to do this, all of which have big problems, and ask the community if there is another option I'm missing. Let's begin: Before I added an IOC container to my project code, I started with a class like this: class Foobar { //parameters are state dependencies, not service dependencies public Foobar(string alpha, int omega){...}; //...other stuff } I decide to add a Logger service depdendency to the Foobar class, which perhaps I'll provide through DI: class Foobar { public Foobar(string alpha, int omega, ILogger log){...}; //...other stuff } But then I'm also told I need to make class Foobar itself "swappable." That is, I'm required to service-locate a Foobar instance. I add a new interface into the mix: class Foobar : IFoobar { public Foobar(string alpha, int omega, ILogger log){...}; //...other stuff } When I make the service locator call, it will DI the ILogger service dependency for me. Unfortunately the same is not true of the state dependencies Alpha and Omega. Some containers offer a syntax to address this: //Unity 2.0 pseudo-ish code: myContainer.Resolve<IFoobar>( new parameterOverride[] { {"alpha", "one"}, {"omega",2} } ); I like the feature, but I don't like that it is untyped and not evident to the developer what parameters must be passed (via intellisense, etc). So I look at another solution: //This is a "boiler plate" heavy approach! class Foobar : IFoobar { public Foobar (string alpha, int omega){...}; //...stuff } class FoobarFactory : IFoobarFactory { public IFoobar IFoobarFactory.Create(string alpha, int omega){ return new Foobar(alpha, omega); } } //fetch it... myContainer.Resolve<IFoobarFactory>().Create("one", 2); The above solves the type-safety and intellisense problem, but it (1) forced class Foobar to fetch an ILogger through a service locator rather than DI and (2) it requires me to make a bunch of boiler-plate (XXXFactory, IXXXFactory) for all varieties of Foobar implementations I might use. Should I decide to go with a pure service locator approach, it may not be a problem. But I still can't stand all the boiler-plate needed to make this work. So then I try this: //code named "concrete creator" class Foobar : IFoobar { public Foobar(string alpha, int omega, ILogger log){...}; static IFoobar Create(string alpha, int omega){ //unity 2.0 pseudo-ish code. Assume a common //service locator, or singleton holds the container... return Container.Resolve<IFoobar>( new parameterOverride[] {{"alpha", alpha},{"omega", omega} } ); } //Get my instance: Foobar.Create("alpha",2); I actually don't mind that I'm using the concrete "Foobar" class to create an IFoobar. It represents a base concept that I don't expect to change in my code. I also don't mind the lack of type-safety in the static "Create", because it is now encapsulated. My intellisense is working too! Any concrete instance made this way will ignore the supplied state params if they don't apply (a Unity 2.0 behavior). Perhaps a different concrete implementation "FooFoobar" might have a formal arg name mismatch, but I'm still pretty happy with it. But the big problem with this approach is that it only works effectively with Unity 2.0 (a mismatched parameter in Structure Map will throw an exception). So it is good only if I stay with Unity. The problem is, I'm beginning to like Structure Map a lot more. So now I go onto yet another option: class Foobar : IFoobar, IFoobarInit { public Foobar(ILogger log){...}; public IFoobar IFoobarInit.Initialize(string alpha, int omega){ this.alpha = alpha; this.omega = omega; return this; } } //now create it... IFoobar foo = myContainer.resolve<IFoobarInit>().Initialize("one", 2) Now with this I've got a somewhat nice compromise with the other approaches: (1) My arguments are type-safe / intellisense aware (2) I have a choice of fetching the ILogger via DI (shown above) or service locator, (3) there is no need to make one or more seperate concrete FoobarFactory classes (contrast with the verbose "boiler-plate" example code earlier), and (4) it reasonably upholds the principle "make interfaces easy to use correctly, and hard to use incorrectly." At least it arguably is no worse than the alternatives previously discussed. One acceptance barrier yet remains: I also want to apply "design by contract." Every sample I presented was intentionally favoring constructor injection (for state dependencies) because I want to preserve "invariant" support as most commonly practiced. Namely, the invariant is established when the constructor completes. In the sample above, the invarient is not established when object construction completes. As long as I'm doing home-grown "design by contract" I could just tell developers not to test the invariant until the Initialize(...) method is called. But more to the point, when .net 4.0 comes out I want to use its "code contract" support for design by contract. From what I read, it will not be compatible with this last approach. Curses! Of course it also occurs to me that my entire philosophy is off. Perhaps I'd be told that conjuring a Foobar : IFoobar via a service locator implies that it is a service - and services only have other service dependencies, they don't have state dependencies (such as the Alpha and Omega of these examples). I'm open to listening to such philosophical matters as well, but I'd also like to know what semi-authorative reference to read that would steer me down that thought path. So now I turn it to the community. What approach should I consider that I havn't yet? Must I really believe I've exhausted my options?

  Read the article

• Form constructor vs Form_Load

  - by Farstucker

  Whats the difference between a form constructor and the form_Load method? Whats your though process for placing items in one vs the other?

  Read the article

• call parent constructor in ruby

  - by Stas

  Hi! How can I call parents constructor ? module C attr_accessor :c, :cc def initialization c, cc @c, @cc = c, cc end end class B attr_accessor :b, :bb def initialization b, bb @b, @bb = b, bb end end class A < B include C attr_accessor :a, :aa def initialization (a, b, c, aa, bb, cc) #call B::initialization - ? #call C::initialization - ? @a, @aa = a, aa end end Thanks.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >